The influence of anesthesia and analgesia on the formation of chronic pain syndrome in patients undergoing total knee or hip arthroplasty. Article
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. Total knee and hip replacement surgery for stages 3–4 of osteoarthritis often complicated by chronic postoperative pain syndrome (CPOP). Objectives. The aim of the study was to choosing anesthesia that lid to decries the incidence of CPOP. Materials and methods. The study included 104 patients over 65 years old who underwent total knee or hip arthroplasty. Patients were divided into two groups: combined spinal-epidural anesthesia and extended epidural analgesia (CSEA) — 53 patients; general anesthesia and multicomponent postoperative analgesia (GA) — 51 patients. The Western Ontario MacMaster (WOMAC) scale and The Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions (DN4) scale was used. Indicators were evaluated in 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. We also assess the area of the hyperalgesia zone in the early postoperative period. Results. The WOMAC score was 85.7 ± 9.99 points in the CSEA group and 99.0 ± 11.68 in the GA group 3 months after surgery (p < 0.01), 81.3 ± 10.19 versus 93, 8 ± 11.31 after 6 months (p < 0.01) and 78.7 ± 10.48 versus 89.9 ± 10.77 after a year (p < 0.01). The formation of CPOP was observed in 16 (15.4 %) patients, 4 (7.5 %) patients in the CSEA group and 12 (23.53 %) patients in the GA group (p < 0.05). The neuropathic component of chronic pain was observed in 10 (62.5 %) patients, somewhat less often in the CSEA group (p > 0.05). In patients with advanced CPOP, it was noted that the area of the secondary hyperalgesia zone in the first two days after surgery was significantly larger. The hyperalgesia zone was significantly smaller in patients with CSEA. Conclusions. Performing knee or hip joint replacement using CSEA compared with GA without a regional component is associated with a lower risk of developing CPOP syndrome and better functional rehabilitation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".